Getting your Money’s Worth (ouch) on your ad buy: who’s to blame?
- Author: robbo97
- Filed under: Advertising
Oct 12,2009
Well someone screwed up. It happens, and goodness knows perhaps this might actually increase the response rates on your ads — but probably not. If anyone at Starwood wants to know why this ad is not working that well, it’s either the fault of:
a) The Chicago Sun-Times team, or
b) Whoever trafficks their ads, or
c) Advertising.com, the ad network who ran this ad on the page, or
d) The agency who Starwood is having run their ads (dunno who that is), or
e) Someone at Starwood trafficked it incorrectly…?
In any event – what you have is a 160×600 showing up in a 728×90 spot, and showing just enough skin for you to know it’s an ad for Westin. The URL it clicks through to (yes that does work) is http://www.starwoodpromos.com/westin-mastercard/&EM=Q3Q4_NAD_MEDIA_WS_EN_MASTERCARD
I don’t have a lot of readers, but I’d love to see the comments about where this actually got screwed up 
Tags
Recent Comments
- Intego discovers Mac spyware piggybacking on free screensavers on voicefive.com – more comScore tracking stuff
- Chrisweber1337 on Multiple Social Network Messages
- Chrisweber1337 on Multiple Social Network Messages
- how can i get pregnant on Facebook (almost) to 500 million users…
- landlord thermostat on Facebook (almost) to 500 million users…
Categories
- Administrative
- Advertising
- Affiliates
- Business Marketing
- Cloud-based Government
- Corporate evolution
- Customer service
- Finance
- Free
- Global
- Health
- Insurance
- Internet
- lead generation
- Measurement
- Movies
- Networking
- News
- privacy
- probability
- Random events
- Reading
- Realtime
- Security
- Social Networks
- Startups
- Thinking
- Uncategorized
- Wall Street
- writing
Archives
- January 2012
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
Blogroll
Recent Posts
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jan | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
Meta
Recent Comments
- dragon master: ML private client wasn't the
- Michael: excellent
- Remove Spyware: Your point of view is
- cjmacd: my educated guess - it
- JT Batson: While your comment is misinformed,
- Philip: Jason, you are absolutely correct!
- orlando: I don't care about this
- abassseo: How To Make money with
- Mark Stoneham: More intrusive ads, for one.
- Thexeez1: The problem I have with
3 Responses for "Getting your Money’s Worth (ouch) on your ad buy: who’s to blame?"
[...] CEO happened to spot a mistrafficked ad on the Chicago Sun-Times website this past weekend when looking for information about the marathon [...]
my educated guess – it would have to be the traffic person at the newspaper.
probably generated 3 different advertising.com remnant tags – 1 for 728×90, one for 160×600 and one for 300×250. The scheduled the 160×600 tag in the 728×90 spot, caught it quickly, corrected it.
i really doubt if it had any effect on response rate for westin or revenue for sun times. at an average $.40 CPM paid out by advertising.com to the newspaper, that ad would've needed to be screwed up like this 2500 times to cost the paper $1 in revenue (not that anyone would EVER catch that). since the CTR is probably .05 %, the potential for 1 missed click isn't even worth calculating.
nobody's perfect. I don't see the point?
my educated guess – it would have to be the traffic person at the newspaper.
probably generated 3 different advertising.com remnant tags – 1 for 728×90, one for 160×600 and one for 300×250. The scheduled the 160×600 tag in the 728×90 spot, caught it quickly, corrected it.
i really doubt if it had any effect on response rate for westin or revenue for sun times. at an average $.40 CPM paid out by advertising.com to the newspaper, that ad would've needed to be screwed up like this 2500 times to cost the paper $1 in revenue (not that anyone would EVER catch that). since the CTR is probably .05 %, the potential for 1 missed click isn't even worth calculating.
nobody's perfect. I don't see the point?
Leave a reply